It will be next year before there is an initial ruling on whether the sweeping pension reform measures passed by the legislature in December violate the state Constitution.

During a hearing Thursday, Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz rejected a suggestion from lawyers representing state retiree groups and others seeking to overturn the law to have the cases proceed on a parallel track that the lawyers said would help speed up a resolution.

Belz said such an approach could lead to piecemeal rulings on different aspects of the lawsuits and actually prolong a final decision.

All of the lawsuits filed contend that the reforms violate the pension protection clause of the state Constitution that says pension benefits cannot be diminished or impaired. The pension reform law includes changes such as reducing annual cost-of-living increases.

Some of the lawsuits also raise other constitutional issues, such as those governing contracts and equal protection.

Lawyers for employees and retirees wanted a quicker resolution of the pension protection issues.

“We as plaintiffs feel the pension protection clause is an absolute issue,” said Aaron Maduff, who represents the State Universities Annuitants Association. “The plaintiffs felt we should deal with the threshold issue of the pension protection clause because if we are correct on that, then the case is done. It’s over.

“But the judge has decided that he wants to do all of the issues.”

A lengthy schedule was laid out in court Thursday for both side to prepare their cases to address all of the various issues that have been raised. Asked when there might be an initial resolution to the case, Maduff said, “We’re looking into next year certainly.”

The state has essentially argued that Illinois’ financial condition is bad enough that it justifies ignoring the pension protection clause in this case. Lawmakers who support the reforms also argue that, in exchange for lower benefits, employees will have their pension contributions reduced and get guarantees the state will make its pension payments.

However, John Myers, who represents the Retired State Employees Association, said the plaintiffs believe the pension protection clause doesn’t allow for any exceptions.

“When I say no exceptions, there’s no wiggle room just because the state happens to have financial problems,” Myers said.

Attorneys for the state have said they will call five expert witnesses to buttress their case, while attorneys for the employees and retirees said they need time to review research work produced by the experts, conduct depositions and file responses.

The schedule for all of that will take the case into early December.

The pension reform law was supposed to take effect June 1, but Belz put a hold on it until the court cases have been resolved.

Page 2 of 2 - Although the reforms are intended to save the state billions over the next decades, state officials are not using any of the projected savings to help balance the budget until it’s been determined if the law is constitutional.